nymrel_beacon_ping

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. The description indicates the tool has side effects (registers heartbeat, prevents zombie processes) but doesn't disclose details: whether repeated pings are idempotent, what happens when an agent is offline, whether it writes to a persistent store, or any rate limits. The multi-agent runtime health monitoring aspect is mentioned but not elaborated. As a tool that likely mutates state, this lacks behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose but packs three actions into one sentence, making it slightly hard to parse. It could be broken into clearer sentences, but it does cover the key functionality without fluff. Not overtly verbose, but not optimally structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Five parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the overall purpose but doesn't explain expected return values (out of scope given no output schema) or error conditions. For a monitoring tool, it doesn't describe what 'fleet_status' returns or how agents should interpret results. The complexity is moderate, and the description is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of role (agent surface name with examples) and taskSummary (active bounded task slice), which enriches the bare schema. The description also clarifies that action controls between ping and fleet query. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline of 3 and slightly exceeds it with domain-specific context like 'bounded task slice'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names three specific actions (registers liveness heartbeat, queries fleet presence, monitors runtime health), which clearly maps to the ping/fleet_status actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nymrel_swarm_bus or nymrel_machine_trust, which could overlap in purpose. The verb is specific and the resource is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it's for heartbeat and fleet queries, but doesn't state when to prefer this over nymrel_swarm_bus or nymrel_proof_ledger. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned. Given 13 sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.